Back to threaded view Full conversation · 52 posts

Evidence of Viking barley farms in Greenland 800 yrs ago when Climate was warmer.

BaronVonZemo 64260 posts Joined:
Posted

Science boys. Put on your critical thinking caps. Don’t let Occasio-Cortez be the source of your information. You can’t grow barley in Greenland today because the Climate is too cold. But they did 800 years ago.

Climate has always been in flux, but we have only been measuring since the 1870’s (and poorly and anecdotallly at that until 40 years ago).

The belief of anthropogenic Climate Change has become a religion to an atheistic Left, who despite believing that they are more enlightened, have become the very radical religious zealots that they claim to despise. They wish to push their religion on others, and many even propose penalties for those “deniers” who don’t openly accept their pagan god. An overemphasis on temp observations from a very short modern period which would inevitably record a swing one way or another without appreciating the overall longer term cycles has allowed these zealots to claim false confirmation of their beliefs.

Before you try to rationalize this article, read the whole thing because it explains away many of the desperate critiques from the Left that are sure to come.

And this all comes because like Brett Kavanaugh, Vikings like beer. They like beer! Dilly! Dilly!

Link: http://sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland

  • Level 1

    Here are some true statements:

    1) Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas - I challenge you to find a single scientist who disputes this.
    2) The concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has more than doubled since the start of the industrial revolution - Ice cores allow for this to be measured with great precision for thousands of years. I challenge you to find a single scientist who believes this is from some natural process and not man-made.
    3) The concentration continues to increase right this second - Measurements on Mauna Loa confirm this every time they are made
    4) Carbon Dioxide is very persistent in the atmosphere, it takes up to 200 years for it to be removed via natural processes.

    Any reasonable person would conclude that the earth will continue to warm relative to whatever baseline "natural" process is happening because of this. The only question is by how much.

    Any reasonable person would conclude that it makes sense for us to investigate ways to mitigate these impacts in order to avoid extremely expensive worst-case outcomes (rapid melting of the Antarctic ice sheets, coastal inundation, etc).

    An unreasonable person would dismiss all this as some leftist religion and draw the line at any mitigation process that costs more than $0.01.

    • Level 2

      Your statements have nothing to do this new fact found in Greenland.

      Actually your statements even have nothing to do with Global warming because you unconsciously assume something and jump too big. But I am glad you mention ice core data. The ice cores from Antarctica reveal that CO2 lags temperature at the end of ice age by 800 years, i.e. temperature change is cause and CO2 change is the consequence during this period. I hope this ice core data revelation can make you re-think your hidden assumption.

      BTW, your 2nd statement has been challenged. that is, both natural and anthropogenic emissions have been increasing for over 50 years, not just anthropogenic emissions only.

    • Level 2

      the question is; What to do about it?

      get rid of humans

    • Level 2

      Not sure anything can be done until China decides to do it.

      Regarding CO2...it looks like humans picked a bad time to start smoking. The world was already high and about to fall.

      Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good.
      • Level 3

        If you look at what your CO2 graph actually looks like now

        And don’t get nervous, I think there is something wrong with you. Seriously.

        Did you intentionally remove where it is now? Look at second graph on this link.

        Link: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

        • Level 4

          I didn't disagree with you. Also, the image isn't edited; its wikimedia

          First, the title of my post just indicated that the US is no longer the primary country which is driving CO2 up. Ever been to a city of 20 million in Asia? You can barely breathe. They've got hundreds of millions of 2-cycle scooters pumping CO2 into the air every day, and their factory regulations are not as strong as ours. I oppose a regime that tries to solve the spike you show by regulating us more than them, because it will not solve the spike and it will just sacrifice our country for theirs, and I don't think that is a long term good for the world. What is your solution?

          Then, I said that humans picked a bad time to start smoking...meaning, we started generating CO2 at the top of the CO2 cycle...and, if going higher is bad, we picked a bad time to drive it higher. Granted, that is because we had to be warm for that to even start happening, so it was inevitable that that happen, I thing. But, my statement by itself did not challenge your post at all. It just lamented reality.

          Also, I removed nothing. I pulled an image from wikipedia which shows the cyclic nature of the situation. As far as the NASA graph (which omits the bottom half of the graph to make it more persuasive in a misleading way...just sayin'), I can only hope that the spike is because we changed how we measure CO2 exactly precisely when the spike happens (from ice cores to direct measurement). But, if that is not the reason, there could be a problem. Of course, when we run out of oil in 50 years (a blip in the timeline), the spike will likely disappear over the next few hundred years (as it always has in the past), and we may even return to the natural cycle, which would totally suck because it would get pretty damned cold. Humanity flourishes at the top of the spike, not the bottom. Obviously, though, like any species, we have a goldilocks zone, and going too far outside that zone, on the top or bottom, can't be good. We'll just have to adapt, but I think long term change is the only long term constant.

          Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good.
    • Level 2

      I don’t disagree but you only see the negatives. What about the increase in human quality of life

      Should we deny the third world access to cheap energy that produces electricity that they never had, warmth and transportation? Don’t they deserve a better quality of life? Or is it only for western more advanced nations. There is a humane and economic aspect associated with increased CO2 emissions. We got ours, fuck the developing world?

    • Level 2

      Surprise, surprise.

      (no message)
      Jack, he is a banker
      and Jane, she is a clerk
    • Level 2

      Excellent post.

      Most concise and effective argument made on this topic on this Board.

      The American Dream belongs to all of us. — Kamala Harris
        • Level 4

          Yes. The people beyond the wall love typhoons and tsunamis.

          (no message)
          The American Dream belongs to all of us. — Kamala Harris
          • Level 5

            So we caused that but they shouldn’t enjoy a better standard of living. You are the definition of

            a liberal progressive asshole. We got AC, two cars, vacation homes, airplanes, SUV’s, but fuck those guys let’s make energy costs higher so we can cool the planet. You are an arrogant hypocrite. These people want electricity, food, transportation, etc but you deem it a global problem so fuck them, put up solar panels. Are you serious. How do you look in the mirror. These countries don’t have fresh water plants. But you get pissed when your cable doesn’t work and you can’t watch NatGeo.

            • Level 6

              A remarkable post.

              The sad thing is, there are many who think and speak as you do

              Jack, he is a banker
              and Jane, she is a clerk
            • Level 6

              Are you on meth???

              No one other than you equates mitigating climate change as necessarily making life worse for the Third World.

              I have spent plenty of time in the bush in Third World nations in Africa and Asia. So save your pontificating for all your smacked ass golf buddies at your country club.

              The world can do a much better job mitigating man's impact upon climate change while building a better quality of life for Third World people.

              They are not mutually exclusive objectives.

              Lighten up, btw. Go find some Palm Beach cougars to take the edge off a tad.

              The American Dream belongs to all of us. — Kamala Harris
          • Level 5

            That's pretty funny.

            A: We may have fewer typhoons and tsunamis over the next several thousand years, but you have to keep your current standard of living for you and your kids.
            B: Burn as many fires, and drive as many 2-cycle scooters as you want to get to better jobs to improve the quality of life for your kids, but we may have more tsunamis and typhoons over the next few thousand years.

            We know which option you would pick for them.

            But which option do you really think they would take?

            I'm not saying which is the right decision for the world in the end. Your decision might be. But, let's not pretend that citizens of the Third World are on your side. They are not. You have to further disinfranchise them to effect the kind of change you want...and that means people will die in the short term due to political decisions.

            Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good.
  • Level 1

    Make Greenland great again...and that's good for America how?

    So in 100 years Florida and all cities on the east coast will be gone, causing millions of Americans will be displaced, but don't worry there will be farming in Greenland.

    We better hope the Canada has open borders at that time.

    There is no scenario in which climate change is a net positive for America.

End of conversation